Eighty Percent of Consumers Support Hormone-Free Labels for Milk

The act of pouring a cool glass of milk, a staple in most kitchens, seemingly hasn’t changed in generations.  While the average American continues to drink more than 20 gallons of milk per year, there’s a lot going on in the milk industry. Changes range from who is producing milk and where to controversy over what gets printed on the carton.

Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in the growth of large dairy operations, particularly in the Midwest and West, while thousands of small family dairy farms have disappeared.  The concentration of milk production into fewer operations affects the environment, the welfare of dairy cows, and, increasingly, consumers.  The growing public awareness of the downsides of intensive milk production methods has led to a corresponding growth in the sale of organic dairy products, as well as those from cows not treated with artificial hormones.

The debate over the use of artificial hormones in particular has been heating up.  Known as rBGH or rBST, the genetically engineered hormone is injected into cows to make them produce more milk. Besides the documented increase of infections in dairy cows injected with rBGH, which necessitates increased use of antibiotics, there are ongoing questions about links to cancer in humans. As a result, most of the industrialized countries in the world have banned this hormone, including Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and all 25 countries in the European Union.

As consumers have grown more worried about the effects of rBGH on their health, demand for rBGH-free dairy products has also grown.  Several large dairies, including California Dairies Inc., the nation’s second largest dairy cooperative, have changed their policies to no longer accept milk from cows treated with rBGH.  Citing increased consumer demand for dairy products produced without artificial hormones, other large dairy processors, such as Tillamook Cheese and Ben &Jerry’s, and large dairy users, such as the Catholic Healthcare West hospital chain and several independent hospitals, have switched to rBGH-free milk.

This wave of dairies going artificial hormone-free has not come without opposition.  Monsanto, and other proponents of biotechnology, have launched a campaign to defend the hormone, as well as to attack the labels that mark products as rBGH-free.  Recently, Monsanto, the maker of rBGH, sent letters to both the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission urging the agencies to restrict the practice of labeling milk rBGH-free.  They claim that because the FDA approved the use of rBGH on the grounds that using the hormone does not change the chemical composition of milk, there is no valid reason to allow dairies to distinguish their products as being rBGH-free.

But recent trends in the market and new poll results show that consumers overwhelmingly want more, not less, information about how and where their food was produced. A recent poll conducted for Food & Water Watch indicates that 80 percent of consumers want milk from cows not treated with the hormone to be labeled “rBGH-free.”

Labeling is the primary means for producers to convey information to consumers. Whether artificial growth hormones were used to produce milk is a significant issue, worthy of such communication.  A growing number of consumers include ethical, environmental, and health considerations in their purchasing decisions.  It is these consumers who rely on accurate labeling to inform them not only of the characteristics of the food in the package, but also the methods used to produce that food.  Denying consumers information about dairy products made from milk produced without rBGH leaves consumers without the information they need to make informed choices.